Share This Page

Basically this. However I'd like to add since video games are a lot more interactive by nature people tend to shy away from it more. This is a good thing since you are able to experience emotions in away that books and movies have a much more difficult time expressing.

Click to expand...

You have a good point, I don't agree but again you have a point. I don't think Video games are a media as such like tv, movies, the news and so on. its just a medium for people to express their creativity how ever bad or good that creativity is.

Once video games gets officially (god knows how) classed as media then I will agree. My argument is because I did media studies for 2 years and at that time video games were not classed as media so we didn't learn about them as "media"

Yes times have changed and so do views so when it's offically (again, god knows how) classed as media then my views will have to change

You have a good point, I don't agree but again you have a point. I don't think Video games are a media as such like tv, movies, the news and so on. its just a medium for people to express their creativity how ever bad or good that creativity is.

Once video games gets officially (god knows how) classed as media then I will agree. My argument is because I did media studies for 2 years and at that time video games were not classed as media so we didn't learn about them as "media"

Yes times have changed and so do views so when it's offically (again, god knows how) classed as media then my views will have to change

Click to expand...

How do you see video games as opposed to other types of media? (I didn't see your post in this topic so I might have missed it)

How do you see video games as opposed to other types of media? (I didn't see your post in this topic so I might have missed it)

Click to expand...

Good question.

I see video games as entertainment, really hard for me to truely explain because of my Asperges. But I have to admit that some games like guitar hero have become more then just for entertainment. Guitar hero has shown me songs I have never heard before and song that i have grown to love. Also games like guitar hero are a stepping stone for learning how to play a real guitar so it could be classed as an entertainment tool, again this is my own opinion so i'm nether right or wrong

As a civilisation we all seem to have agreed that the experiences available, as well as things abstract, can be communicated to others by all sorts of means and methods. Some experiences may be pleasant, some may be unpleasant, some may be considerably more complex but it is generally seen that restricting them wholly is a bad thing.
The word wholly in the previous sentence is an important one though and we can see restrictions imposed for a variety of reasons. Said restrictions can vary considerably between jurisdictions, though the guiding principle seems to be preventing harm from being done.

One then asks what harms might be done

Copyright? I presume the devs did well enough to have their own story written, or buy one in.
Real world names? Occasionally seen where based on true events happen and trouble court cases (potentially tainting a jury or something), and people just trying to get on with life. No mention of anything like that happening here.
Promoting violence to a protected class (definitions of which vary somewhat)? Presumably not.

So deleterious to a legally notable portion of the population as to warrant it? Note the phrase "legally notable"; numbers can be important and with enough it may render itself legally notable but that is far from the only option.
This warrants further consideration.
Testing this is ethically dubious so are there equivalents elsewhere to look at for some kind of useful analysis?
As was mentioned there are numerous videos, books, comics, audio works and plays featuring such subject matters. That is a start.
Are those suitably analogous to games?
It has been noted before that most new media are subject to a "so realistic it does not compare to what came before" buzz, one often promoted by the established concepts that are having their revenue streams being encroached upon. Games are no different here. The question though surely has to be are they? Violence and the depictions thereof were the main subject prior to now. As far as I am aware (and it is an area of interest) nobody has shown any kind of causal link in the general population, this despite several investigations into the matter. In these sorts of discussions a next step is to argue that violence is excessive by definition where sex is considered a natural enough part of life for most, why then the restriction? Similarly... I think a George Carlin quote of "there are worse things in life than giving someone else an orgasm" will suffice for now. Further discussion however might be better saved for a later post.
Faulty logic it may be (deferring to authority when authority has shown itself to repeatedly be inept is surely not a good plan) but when comparing standards within countries for rating games and rating films and rating TV there are often quite varying standards, wind in other countries and it only gets worse (it being part of the reason the US gets labelled violent prudes, I highly suggest seeing "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"). Games then are subject to far harsher standards than other media, might then there be something to that?
On the flip side copy cats. Suicide rates spike when such things get reported, violence (typically mass shootings) and group psychology in general notes a whole bunch more effects that are "socially contagious". Reporting of suicide is then often downplayed in an attempt to reduce knock on effects, and various outlets take stick for sensationalising shootings. Would restricting things prevent that? On the flip side would it reduce it? Day to day violence is on the decline, the drop coming around the time games were rising up*, and creating empathy is a popular method of treatment for conditions, whether done intentionally or just by chance. More interestingly might such a work act as a catharsis or release? One does not harm pixels after all.
*merely a correlation though, and regression testing reveals other potential answers.
The victim class. Psychiatry notes minds subject to traumatic experiences may have "triggers" that cause an unpleasant reliving of the event in question, the aftermath of which may leave the sufferer substantially harmed. Avoidance of said triggers then being a path taken. Would removing this work via a legal sanction be an option sound under the law? Given the same could also be said of depictions of war (I have met more than one survivor of world war 2 that is unable to play certain games or watch certain films) one wonders if there is such a law, hard to imagine there is (it not being the proverbial nuclear launch codes or state secrets), that doing so would not create a double standard under the law. A secondary question is "is the work likely to be unavoidable?", it being a game you actively have to play (let us not get into what a let's play may count as for this) the answer is obvious there. If the publisher had an ill considered advertising campaign on public transport we get to reconsider that one but that would be a different matter.

The art question. When dealing with pornography it has been noted that some things a simplistic reading (makeup, lights, sets, sound, camera, direction of actors, all if not necessary then certainly can improve things) might consider it functionally the same as film and thus art but for certain legal purposes, ones leading to the ability to screen, distribute, advertise and obtain ratings, it does not count as such. Most rulings here tend to be along the lines of "if the intended purpose of the work is titillation then it is possible it may not count as art". I don't see something like that applying here.
From an "artistic" sense there are also challenges, video films being noted as collaborative works (compared to books, singing and such which are a often a more solo affair) once faced a challenge on art or not. Auteur theory was then one of the main responses to this ( https://www.britannica.com/art/auteur-theory ), that being as the director is the one with the vision and theoretically responsible for all things/given the last word then it is the product of one artist and thus art. I am inclined to dismiss the lot but felt the need to at least mention it in passing. To operate within the logic though one could expect someone versed in the general ideas of games to recognise it as a game from a given personage though.

The economics question. "don't poke the bear" is how a lot of the game industry positions itself, a position troubled recently during the loot box debacles. A common response when societal outcry gets too great** is some kind of self regulation, one seen previously in the US in comic books (the comic book code), films (the hays code), music (the warning labels) and more besides, indeed within games one might look at NES and SNES era Nintendo of North America. A rather unfortunate state of affairs from where I sit but not an invalid question -- would restricting this allow other things to continue unabated?

**and society does enjoy itself a good paedophile hunt, the ability for the subject alone to evoke strong feelings and bypass a lot of rational thought being rather well known (I hear paedophiles are rather fond of a substance the come to depend on called dihydrogen monoxide, and will often imbibe some within the 48 hours leading up to their actions).

The religion question. Might apply in some places in the world but presumably not anywhere that truly values a freedom of speech and expression.

What has copyright got to do with an opinion on if showing a child being abused in a video game is right or wrong?

As educatated as you look to be, are you not completely missing the point?

EDIT:

Yes you may argue that I might be missing the point of your opionin but I don't get your opinion. Yes I understand what you said but you are trying to steer away from the fact that we are talking about what is right and what is wrong

EDIT 2:

"I hear paedophiles are rather fond of a substance the come to depend on called dihydrogen monoxide, and will often imbibe some within the 48 hours leading up to their actions"

Would love to hear where you heard that. Sadly paedophiles come in all shapes and sizes using many differant methods so what you heard is wrong, trust me I know being on the reciving end

What's right and what is wrong is morally subjective and there is no "right" answer. Most people agree that Murder and in this case child abuse is morally wrong so that is why we have laws to keep most people in check and lock up the ones that actually do it as punishment.

The thing is that this is a video game. A simulation. No one wants to see a child beaten unless you're a twisted individual. From what I've seen you can save the child in this game. But no one is actually doing it. If it bothers you then ignore it in this case. Seeking out attention because your feelings got hurt is childish and embarrassing.

What's right and what is wrong is morally subjective and there is no "right" answer. Most people agree that Murder and in this case child abuse is morally wrong so that is why we have laws to keep most people in check and lock up the ones that actually do it as punishment.

The thing is that this is a video game. A simulation. No one wants to see a child beaten unless you're a twisted individual. From what I've seen you can save the child in this game. But no one is actually doing it. If it bothers you then ignore it in this case. Seeking out attention because your feelings got hurt is childish and embarrassing.

Click to expand...

I hope this is your opinion because I feel the line "Seeking out attention because your feelings got hurt is childish and embarrassing" is in my mind the wrong thing to say. Very wrong in fact

What has copyright got to do with an opinion on if showing a child being abused in a video game is right or wrong?

As educatated as you look to be, are you not completely missing the point?

EDIT:

Yes you may argue that I might be missing the point of your opionin but I don't get your opinion. Yes I understand what you said but you are trying to steer away from the fact that we are talking about what is right and what is wrong

Click to expand...

I attempted an if not exhaustive then fairly comprehensive breakdown of the possible objections, the only avenue I can see for blocking it being if there are harms done by the existence of the work*. The harms thing being established in the first paragraph and with it setting the stage for the rest of the post. Copyright is one of the potential harms done via a work (if said work infringes upon the copyright of another then they are harmed by not being able to utilise their work as much) but readily dismissed in this case. A bit redundant perhaps but for the style of argument I was favouring "cover all bases" is the done thing, knocking it out at the start then leaving us time to consider the juicier aspects.

*a mere personal objection, which from what I have seen you post in thus far in thread is your entire position (and occasionally teetering on being an appeal to emotion), being able to be dismissed with the classic philosophical line "you can't always get what you want".

I then proceeded to spend most of the rest of the post considering individual or collective harms done to individuals of groups by the existence of the game, how that might come about and what legal frameworks there may be. A bit of a mix of US and UK/commonwealth law but I am OK with that for this as they are similar enough for my purposes here (I was mostly considering principles rather than statutes and case law).

I hope this is your opinion because I feel the line "Seeking out attention because your feelings got hurt is childish and embarrassing" is in my mind the wrong thing to say. Very wrong in fact

Click to expand...

I feel like I'm very right. That's what people like you do. You're to sensitive to the real world and have to cry about things that hurt your feelings. It's okay to have feelings. Just don't push them onto other people.

I attempted an if not exhaustive then fairly comprehensive breakdown of the possible objections, the only avenue I can see for blocking it being if there are harms done by the existence of the work*. The harms thing being established in the first paragraph and with it setting the stage for the rest of the post. Copyright is one of the potential harms done via a work (if said work infringes upon the copyright of another then they are harmed by not being able to utilise their work as much) but readily dismissed in this case. A bit redundant perhaps but for the style of argument I was favouring "cover all bases" is the done thing, knocking it out at the start then leaving us time to consider the juicier aspects.

*a mere personal objection, which from what I have seen you post in thus far in thread is your entire position (and occasionally teetering on being an appeal to emotion), being able to be dismissed with the classic "you can't always get what you want".

I then proceeded to spend most of the rest of the post considering individual or collective harms done to individuals of groups by the existence of the game, how that might come about and what legal frameworks there may be. A bit of a mix of US and UK/commonwealth law but I am OK with that for this as they are similar enough for my purposes here (I was mostly considering principles rather than statutes and case law).

Click to expand...

The only thing I disagree with (everything else you said is spot on) is the line "*a mere personal objection, which from what I have seen you post in thus far in thread is your entire position (and occasionally teetering on being an appeal to emotion), being able to be dismissed with the classic philosophical line "you can't always get what you want". is this line

Being a sufferer of Asperges with an I.Q of 154 (not boasting, just trying to make my point in the way I can) I do find it very hard to get my point across. Why am i telling you this? I'm telling you this because if you don't know, you don't know and what many people do is judge on what is said rather than knowing that person.

As I type this I see I have a 4 next to the bell so I can guess that someone will be nasty about what i have said. but what I have said comes from personal expericence.

I feel like I'm very right. That's what people like you do. You're to sensitive to the real world and have to cry about things that hurt your feelings. It's okay to have feelings. Just don't push them onto other people.

Click to expand...

Who's pushing? I have said that its my own opinion so its not my fault you can't read. Not attacking you just the impression you have given me. correct me if im wrong if you like

The only thing I disagree with (everything else you said is spot on) is the line "*a mere personal objection, which from what I have seen you post in thus far in thread is your entire position (and occasionally teetering on being an appeal to emotion), being able to be dismissed with the classic philosophical line "you can't always get what you want". is this line

Being a sufferer of Asperges with an I.Q of 154 (not boasting, just trying to make my point in the way I can) I do find it very hard to get my point across. Why am i telling you this? I'm telling you this because if you don't know, you don't know and what many people do is judge on what is said rather than knowing that person.

As I type this I see I have a 4 next to the bell so I can guess that someone will be nasty about what i have said. but what I have said comes from personal expericence.

— Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

Who's pushing? I have said that its my own opinion so its not my fault you can't read. Not attacking you just the impression you have given me. correct me if im wrong if you like

Click to expand...

Here's a legitimate question. You've mentioned that you have Asperger Syndrome at least a couple of times now. What, if anything, does this have to do with the topic? Not to mention your IQ. It's not relevant to any aspect of the argument. I have a brother that has AS, and doesn't have this inclination to bring it up for next to no reason. All you've done is bring strong personal bias to the table. Which, in all honesty, does nothing for anyone.. Let alone yourself. Your arguments lack in terms of substance and it's rather off putting. Makes the whole thing boring.

The only thing I disagree with (everything else you said is spot on) is the line "*a mere personal objection, which from what I have seen you post in thus far in thread is your entire position (and occasionally teetering on being an appeal to emotion), being able to be dismissed with the classic philosophical line "you can't always get what you want". is this line

Being a sufferer of Asperges with an I.Q of 154 (not boasting, just trying to make my point in the way I can) I do find it very hard to get my point across. Why am i telling you this? I'm telling you this because if you don't know, you don't know and what many people do is judge on what is said rather than knowing that person.

As I type this I see I have a 4 next to the bell so I can guess that someone will be nasty about what i have said. but what I have said comes from personal expericence.

— Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

Who's pushing? I have said that its my own opinion so its not my fault you can't read. Not attacking you just the impression you have given me. correct me if im wrong if you like

Click to expand...

Where did you take that IQ test? Was it an online test? Did you take it many times? Albert Einstein's IQ was of 165. If your IQ was that high, you wouldn't even be here. Nobel Prize winners generally have that IQ. Are you a Nobel Prize winner? Because AFAIK, geniuses don't generally go boasting their IQs around.

look... I know this is a central topic and this is a very personal one for me... I think that it is a good thank the Alice or whatever her name is can be a hero but the main part of the story is disturbing and i don't really think this should be a video game

look... I know this is a central topic and this is a very personal one for me... I think that it is a good thank the Alice or whatever her name is can be a hero but the main part of the story is disturbing and i don't really think this should be a video game